Misskiwi67 wrote:Until then, continue your conspiracy theories, they have no basis is science or fact.

El_EmDubya wrote:When I was working at the San Diego Zoo, in endocrinology for the reproduction of endangered species, it was very clear to all the keepers and scientific staff that manufactured products don't produce healthy animals or offspring. This is why good zoos have moved away from kibble diets and toward high variety, natural (raw) based strategies.

This decision was as much about keeping vet costs low as the animals' and health high.

I don't think anecdotal evidence is any better or worse than skewed research. What needs to be remembered is that there is money invested in both sides of this debate and in many other debates about corporations vs natural minded people (there are a ton of people spouting the anti cooperation/money view that are also selling products)

LOL...peer reviewed? You have NO idea of the politics behind academia. Academia has become the bastard child of corporate machines, unfortunately.

If you look at my previous posts you'll notice that I TRIED to do a study regarding feeding raw vs processed and was told by my advisor, who is also the Dir of Research for a well respected scientific institution, that I'd kill my academic career. It has taken me almost a year to get over the fact that my research needs to be bland and nonpolitical.

I will not likely stay in academia, upon receiving my Dr, as I want to do REAL research. Call me a rebel, but I want to know the truth and am in a position (thanks to Monte*) to be able to have some career flexibility in a couple of years.

I'd love to rock the boat, but won't find the support in academics.

And I do recommend that you seek out the autopsy photos. They are shocking, esp those cats fed evaporated milk. I see Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease every day in the bodies of my students who consume a lot of HFCS. I can just imagine what they look like on the inside...probably similar to those poor cats.

*Monte necessitated the purchase of investment real estate as he was a scary looking dog and we didn't want to be at the mercy of landlords. We worked hard and now are comfortable with an income from the property that gives us some flexibility w/r/t employment.

BrokenAquarian wrote:Don't go against the money - you will be smacked down.

But who will it help to play the game?

I'm unfortunately an "innocent", at heart, as that's why I started in the sciences. It is my first love and I hope to be able to provide for those who seek the truth. And, YES, I'd be willing to admit that I"m wrong, if given enough unbiased research.

I'll go by what I've seen, from the conversations with "experts", and what I've seen with my own two eyes before I'd blindly trust peer reviewed work...Sadly, research isn't the industry that it pretends to be.

Misskiwi, everything in the studies you linked... pretty much proves my point. I'm not addressing nutritional deficiencies- partially because that's not what AVMA is rallying against and partially because I agree that there are LOTS of people feeding nutritionally deficient "raw diets". I'm addressing the fact that AVMA is trying to use scare tactics to keep people away from raw food by going off about the "dangers" of bacterial contamination. The studies you linked proved that a whopping 14% of animals fed raw shed bacteria... that is amazingly LOW. There are studies out there that show similar percentages of kibble fed animals shed bacteria.

So, again, WHY is raw being demonized as dangerous? Why is raw being singled out when it has been PROVEN that kibble fed animals shed bacteria as well? I'll mention again that I guarantee people feeding raw are more careful about sterilization than people feeding kibble.

Savage Destiny wrote:So, again, WHY is raw being demonized as dangerous? Why is raw being singled out when it has been PROVEN that kibble fed animals shed bacteria as well? I'll mention again that I guarantee people feeding raw are more careful about sterilization than people feeding kibble.

I disagree. I've seen clients who had no idea raw diets carried parasites, had no idea their dogs could shed bacteria, had no idea salmonella could affect their dog, had no idea it could make the grandmother in the home on chemotherapy ill.

YOU are better about handling raw food, but that doesn't mean everyone else is.

There are a lot of people out there that don't understand how raw food is different. I've seen it. I've seen people who didn't understand their dog could get salmonella when its in the ICU almost dead from it, I've seen people who didn't know their pet could shed bacteria and make their child or grandmother ill. These are important things to know in our litigious society. I know of a case where a child got roundworms from a new puppy, and the veterinarian got sued and lost his business because the veterinarian didn't tell the owner it was possible. The veterinarians job is education, not just vaccinations anymore, and as such we need to make sure the information is out there to protect ourselves and others. There's a lot of idiots out there who just don't get it, and they're the quickest to try to make a buck off someone else.

This will change NOTHING. This statement is being made from a public health standpoint only, and only because they have to. If a child or someone in a nursing home gets sick from a therapy dog fed a raw food diet, fingers will quickly point towards the veterinary world. This is a CYA, nothing more.

Take heart, the studies are ongoing, and there is more support than you think out there, particularly in the feline world. I'm not exactly a black sheep when I feed my own pets raw food on occasion, and support those clients who feed raw. The professor of nutrition and chair of research at the university of Tennessee is a raw feeder. Change is slow, change is hard, but change is coming. This is not, in my opinion, a setback for those of you who want to feed raw. Take a deep breath, it will be OK.

Savage Destiny wrote:So, again, WHY is raw being demonized as dangerous? Why is raw being singled out when it has been PROVEN that kibble fed animals shed bacteria as well? I'll mention again that I guarantee people feeding raw are more careful about sterilization than people feeding kibble.

I disagree. I've seen clients who had no idea raw diets carried parasites, had no idea their dogs could shed bacteria, had no idea salmonella could affect their dog, had no idea it could make the grandmother in the home on chemotherapy ill.

YOU are better about handling raw food, but that doesn't mean everyone else is.

RE blold ^ that is PURELY on those idiots who did NOT do ANY research! I stopped feeding raw for 2 weeks when my husband had open heart surgery a few years ago and I was extra careful with cleanup. Normally, I am pretty lax with cleanup and I realize I have been lucky to have nothing come of it. I have done at least basic research and maybe a tiny bit more now over the years. As much as I want to at times, we simply really cannot save people from themselves/their own stupidity. (People who get 'pit bulls' without having done any research also get similarly chastised..... ) Basic homework is key in any and EVERY endeavor !!! ... OK just read the part about vets getting sued but I can't believe the roundworm case even made it that far!!

HappyPuppy wrote:RE blold ^ that is PURELY on those idiots who did NOT do ANY research!

... OK just read the part about vets getting sued but I can't believe the roundworm case even made it that far!!

I wish it was that easy, but its not. Every veterinarian takes an oath upon accepting their degree to use our skills for the benefit of society (society first, not animals), with the protection of public health and advancement of medical knowledge being two of four ways to benefit said society. The position statement of the AVMA supports those principles.

Because public health is at the forefront of the job description of a veterinarian, it is our duty to do whatever we can to protect the public from those things they do not understand. When we fail to do that, our career is at stake.

But dogs shedding salmonella from kibble can make Grandma on chemo ill, children ill, etc. just as easily as raw. What I'm hating here is that this new policy or stance or whatever they want to call it is calling out JUST raw foods as dangerous. If they want to put out a public health warning, fine, but they need to be addressing EVERYTHING that can be dangerous.

HappyPuppy wrote:What I wanna know......... is HOW is grandma coming in contact with feces ?

Hmmm lets see, I see people letting their dogs lick their mouth every day! ACK!

We come into contact with e coli, salmonella and many other bacterial nasties every time we touch a door handle, a countertop and many with more concentrations than in dog poop.

As for parasites in dog food, unless you are doing your own from wild caught meat in which roundworm cysts can survive, every one of my manufacturers flash freeze (and kept so for 7 days) their well ground product ensuring parasites are killed. Dogs do not get roundworm and parasites from raw food that is properly prepared.

Vets are worried about liability. Done badly can make dogs ill, and vets are all about liability!

"I know of a case where a child got roundworms from a new puppy, and the veterinarian got sued and lost his business because the veterinarian didn't tell the owner it was possible."

Though considering the amount of recalls in Vet rx food, I hardly see an increased risk, IF they know anything about feeding raw. Most know NOTHING about raw feeding. I have several vets use ridicoulus scare tactics to get heir clients off of raw.

I will say, I've seen a ton of raw feeders allege that dogs can't get salmonella. People who are at least presenting themselves as being knowledgeable. So I'd have to agree, that there is a lot of information that isn't as well known as it should be.

Not saying this means that the AVMA should take this position. I do think the position is probably primarily driven by the food companies (whatever we are told). But I also don't think it's going to make much difference to raw feeders. I think people are making more of this than they need to. My guess is that vets who already promote raw foods still will, and the large portion of vets who don't approve of it will continue in that vein. And people will continue to feed their dogs as they choose.